LaLiga Demands RevistaCloud to Ask Its CDN to Block a Shared IP: What the Letter Says, Why It’s Infeasible, and Its Implications

RevistaCloud has received a letter from the National Football League (LaLiga) informing us, literally, that our website “is hosted at the IP address 188.114.96.5,” from which “rights of intellectual property are repeatedly violated” by the organization and its licensees. The letter demands that we “immediately cease sharing from the same IP address, pages, or web resources” that supposedly facilitate illegal access to matches, and announces that LaLiga will request internet service providers to block the IP addresses hosting websites that “violate our rights,” citing the December 18, 2024 verdict from the Commercial Court No. 6 of Barcelona.

The technical team at RevistaCloud wishes to inform its readers—and the sector—about these facts, explain why this request is practically impossible for an editor using a modern CDN, and open a debate about the proportionality of blocking measures when they impact shared infrastructure. Below are the verified facts, the legal context, and the implications for anyone managing a legitimate website in Spain.

Exactly what the letter says

The communication, dated in Madrid on September 29, 2025, contains three key sections:

1. “Effective knowledge”. We are notified that the page revistacloud.com “is being hosted” at the IP 188.114.96.5 (an anycast address of Cloudflare) and that, “by way of example,” during matchday 5 of La Liga’s First Division “illicit access” to matches was being facilitated from this IP address. The letter includes a screenshot taken during a matchday, with a list of IPs overlaid, as “proof” of the circumstance.
2. Request. “This serves to inform you effectively of this circumstance, so that you immediately request your service provider (Cloudflare) to prevent sharing web pages or resources from this same IP address that facilitate illegal access to La Liga’s content.”
3. Announcement of measures. It is indicated that La Liga, “based on the verdict of December 18, 2024 from the Commercial Court No. 6 of Barcelona,” will ask ISPs to block the IP addresses where websites that “violate our rights” are hosted, warning of possible legal actions if a “deliberate omission” of obligations related to criminal conduct is detected.

Important fact: RevistaCloud does not publish, host, nor link to illicit content. We use Cloudflare as a CDN and proxy—as thousands of media outlets, businesses, and administrations do—to improve security and performance.

Why the request is impossible for a CDN-using publisher

The letter asks to “stop sharing” a Cloudflare IP with allegedly infringing pages. That instruction does not depend on the client:

• In an anycast CDN, thousands of legitimate domains share the same public IP, announced from multiple points of the network to bring content closer to the user.
• The site selection is made by layer 7 signals: SNI/hostname in TLS and Host header in HTTP.
• A client cannot “close” or “unshare” an IP of a common service; nor does Cloudflare provide each domain with a “button” to cease sharing its IP with the rest of the internet.

Practical consequence: asking an editor to force a CDN to block a shared IP is an unviable request that, if executed, indiscriminately cuts off hundreds or thousands of unrelated sites. The unit of measure for any blocking measure is not the IP but the domain (FQDN) and, when technically feasible, the specific path/URL, under a limited time window and with reversal.

What does jurisprudence say: safeguarding rights, but with proportionality

In Spain, commercial courts have authorized dynamic blocking during match windows to hinder unauthorized retransmissions. Those resolutions—including the December 2024 ruling of Court No. 6— emphasize core principles:

• Proportionality and necessity: act on the minimum necessary to protect rights (e.g., identified domains), not on shared infrastructure unless justified by robust technical reasons.
• Temporal limits: limited windows (start and end) and automatic reversal after the matchday.
• Controlled execution: reproducible tests (traces with SNI/Host, timestamps in UTC, tools/versions), protocols to lift false positives, and a technical channel between rights holders, CDNs, and ISPs.

A reference document can be consulted in the official database of the Judiciary:
https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/AN/openDocument/766326fb999ba14aa0a8778d75e36f0d/20250331

Technical translation: effective and respectful blocking is applied to FQDN/SNI and specific paths, not to an anycast CDN IP that does not identify a particular site.

Risks of shared IP blocking

1. Harm to third parties. Blocking a CDN IP interrupts access to many legitimate websites that do not host illegal content. For media and commerce, this translates into traffic drops, lost sales, and unnecessary support.
2. Ineffectiveness against infringers. Offenders operating outside the law quickly breach domains and providers. A general IP ban is a “dragnet” that bothers innocents and hardly deters culprits.
3. Legal and operational insecurity. If an editor cannot foresee when a measure directed at others may affect them, it diminishes the incentive to invest in security and improvements of infrastructure.
4. Potential liability. In cases where harm is caused by reckless or disproportionate execution, claims may arise (art. 1,902 CC) for damages to business freedom (art. 38 CE) and right to information (art. 20 CE), among others.

What we, as an affected party, request

RevistaCloud has responded to LaLiga in writing, requesting traceability and adjustment to standards of proportionality:

• Detailed indicator inventory: beyond IPs, domains (FQDN), and, if applicable, paths/URLs, with dates and times (UTC) and scope of application (operators/networks).
• Methodology and reproducible tests: tools and versions, traces with SNI/Host, ASNs of origin/destination. A screenshot does not allow for auditing or technical defense.
• Reversion criteria and NOC-to-NOC channel (24/7): technical contacts and SLA for unblocking in case of false positives.
• Judicial alignment: reference to the specific order and explanation of how to prevent harm to third parties during implementation.

We have also reiterated our full willingness to collaborate in removing any illicit content that might be hosted or linked on our platforms, which does not happen as of now.

Advice for any publisher receiving a similar letter

1. Request in writing the details: FQDN, paths, windows, and methodology (with SNI/Host, UTC, tools).
2. Demand proportionality: block domain/URL only within a limited window; never a shared IP without exhaustive technical and judicial justification.
3. Request an operational channel with CDN/ISPs for lifting erroneous blocks within minutes.
4. Document: authoritative lookups (NS/A/AAAA/SOA), traceroutes, curl -v --resolve with SNI, and traffic metrics per operator during working hours.
5. Prepare contingencies: if cross-effects persist, evaluate DNS Only, alternative CDN, or temporary duplication of origins, informing clients/readers via Status Page.

What those requesting blocks should guarantee

• Concrete court orders, not generic private requests.
• Proper unit of blocking (FQDN/SNI and, if applicable, path), not shared CDN IP.
• Valid timeframes and automatic reversal after the match.
• Signed and auditable proofs (pcap/HAR with SNI, timestamps).
• Post-execution report detailing measures taken and impact on third parties.

Only then can we ensure a balanced protection of rights that also preserves the rest of the digital environment.

Our position

RevistaCloud acknowledges the need to protect intellectual property rights and pursue unauthorized broadcasts. However, this protection cannot result in impossible measures for third parties—like “ceasing to share an IP” in a CDN—or in indiscriminate blocks that harm other websites. We reaffirm our willingness to cooperate, always respecting principles of proportionality, reproducible evidence, and legal certainty.

We will continue to inform about any developments and the formal response we receive.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an anycast IP of a CDN and why does it not identify a specific site?
In anycast, the same public IP is announced from multiple network nodes to serve content from the closest point. In CDNs, thousands of domains share the same IP. The actual destination is decided at layer 7 (via SNI/hostname and Host header), so blocking the IP cuts off access to many unrelated websites.

What is the difference between blocking by IP and blocking by domain (FQDN/SNI)?
Blocking by IP in shared infrastructure is coarse and causes collateral damage. Blocking by FQDN/SNI targets the exact domain (and possibly specific path), reducing impact on third parties and aligning better with principles of proportionality and necessity.

What does jurisprudence say about the proportionality of these measures?
Resolutions on dynamic blocking during sports events allow protection but require precision, timeliness, and the avoidance of harm to third parties. The documents available in the Judicial Power (for example, the referenced 03/31/2025) reflect these criteria.

What steps should a company take if it receives a similar letter from rights holders?
Request technical traceability (FQDN, paths, dates, methodology with SNI/Host), demand proportionate measures (domain/block, limited window, reversal), establish NOC-to-NOC channels with SLA, and document any impact to escalate to CDN/ISPs or defend rights if harm results from indiscriminate execution.